Case 3306082/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr A El-Mahraoui — 2021
- Case reference
- 3306082/2020
- Decision date
- 10 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tynan Appearances
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that Coffeelink Limited dismissed Mrs P Cockerill in breach of contract because it did not give her six weeks' notice of termination. By agreement of the parties, the Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay £1,384.62 as damages for breach of contract.
Mrs Cockerill's unfair dismissal claim also succeeded. The Tribunal said it would be just and equitable to reduce both the basic and compensatory awards by 40% to reflect the Claimant's conduct before dismissal. The written record does not set out the underlying basic and compensatory figures separately, but it records that the parties agreed a final unfair dismissal award of £1,287.85.
The Claimant's holiday pay claim was rejected as not well founded and was dismissed. The record does not identify any discrimination, whistleblowing, or redundancy issues, and the hearing was before Employment Judge Tynan sitting alone.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The Tribunal found the Respondent dismissed the Claimant in breach of contract by not giving six weeks' notice. | Upheld | — | £1,385 |
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim succeeded, but the Tribunal reduced both the basic and compensatory awards by 40% to reflect the Claimant's conduct before dismissal. The final unfair dismissal award was agreed between the parties. | Upheld | — | £1,288 |
| Holiday pay | The Tribunal held the holiday pay claim was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,672
- across all upheld claims
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.